HR internal investigations may typically be opened where employee misconduct occurs, including where the employee acts in breach of their employment agreement or the company’s work rules or other policies and procedures. However, there is no specific Thai law governing HR internal investigations, and whether an investigation is opened and undertaken may depend on the policy of each company (which may include requiring an investigation to be undertaken, depending on the seriousness of the relevant misconduct).

Notwithstanding the above, if an employer has ten or more employees, the Labour Protection Act, B.E. 2541 (1998) (LPA) requires said employer to prepare work regulations, which must include details on grievances and their scope, including procedures for the submission of grievances, investigations and consideration of grievances, procedures for the settlement of grievances and protection mechanisms for the claimants and persons involved. However, it is still up to each employer to prescribe the details for such matters as it deems appropriate.

Please see 1.1 Circumstances.

There are no specific requirements for employers to have certain types of channels that employees may use to report concerns (including whether such reports must be anonymous).

There are no specific rules governing who must be responsible for carrying out an HR internal investigation. It is possible for external counsel to be brought in to assist with the investigation.

Please see 1.1 Circumstances.

Please see 1.1 Circumstances.

In cases where an investigation is neither obliged nor prohibited, an employer’s decision on whether or not to carry out an HR internal investigation may depend on the policy of each individual company.

There are no specific requirements for the reporter or respondent to be informed. However, the company’s policy may provide that the reporter or respondent may be informed.

There are no requirements for the opening of HR internal investigations to be communicated to the authorities; this should be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking various factors into account.

It may be possible to ask parties to sign confidentiality agreements or NDAs. However, employees may already be subject to policies or orders of the employer that would require them to keep internal investigations confidential.

Failure to comply with such lawful orders of the employer could lead to the employee being sanctioned with appropriate disciplinary actions.

It is possible to conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether a full HR internal investigation is warranted. Generally, companies may undertake a preliminary assessment of the facts obtained in order to determine if the case has any merit and, if so, whether a further full investigation should be undertaken.

There are no specific rules governing who will need to be interviewed in the course of an HR internal investigation or the number of witnesses who may be interviewed. This may depend on the specific investigation.

If an employee refuses to comply with the order of the employer to participate in the investigation without reasonable grounds, the employer may impose necessary employment sanctions on the employee.

Interviews as part of an HR internal investigation can be carried out remotely. However, it is preferable to conduct the interview in person for transparency.

There are no specific rules governing the number of interviewers that must conduct the interviews as part of an HR internal investigation. There are also no rules relating to the qualifications of such interviewers, which may depend on the specific investigation. Generally, too many interviewers (eg, more than two persons) should be avoided to prevent the accused person/employee from alleging that this creates a threatening environment.

Generally, there are no requirements for neutral third parties to be present during interviews to act as witnesses as part of an HR internal investigation, nor are there any rules that give the interviewees the right to request the presence of a neutral third party.

Generally, there are no requirements for interviewees to be accompanied by any support person, lawyer or legal adviser as part of an HR internal investigation, nor are there any rules that give the interviewees the right to request a support person.

There is no specific information that interviewers need to provide to interviewees at the start and/or end of the interview as part of an HR internal investigation. However, in practice, it is recommended that a general statement about the interview’s objectives be provided. This may depend on the subject matter of the interview.

There is no specific rule to govern how the interviewer should respond to the interviewee’s request to stop the interview. This may need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis (eg, based on whether there is a legitimate need to stop or whether stopping the interview may compromise the investigation process).       

There is no specific requirement for minutes to be taken of interviews conducted as part of an HR internal investigation; this is subject to the requirements of the company and/or the investigation team. It is recommended, however, that detailed minutes are taken and given to the interviewee for signing before or when the meeting is adjourned.

It may be possible to record interviews as part of an HR internal investigation. Such recording can take any form – eg, an audio or video recording or a transcript.

However, the interviewer must comply with the requirements of the Personal Data Protection Act, B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA).

There are no specific rules governing the fact-finding processes that must be used as part of an HR internal investigation. This may depend on the specific investigation.

There are no specific rules governing the protection of the reporter as part of an HR internal investigation. Any such protections (and the scope of such protection) may be provided under the individual company’s relevant policies or procedures.

There are no specific rules governing the protection of the respondent as part of an HR internal investigation. Any such protections (and the scope of such protection) may be provided under the individual company’s relevant policies or procedures.

Disciplinary measures should be taken only when the investigation concludes that there has been a wrongdoing by the employee. However, an employee may be suspended to ensure that an investigation will proceed without any disruptions, or that all relevant parties are protected from intimidation or fears of retaliation, subject to suspension under Thai labour laws and the internal policy (if any).

There are no specific rules governing the protection of other employees as part of an HR internal investigation. Any such protections (including the suspension of certain individuals during the investigation) may be provided under the individual company’s relevant policies or procedures.

There are no rules governing the procedural guarantees that must be put in place or the steps which must be followed as part of an HR internal investigation.

Please see 5.1 Requirements.

There are no rules governing the burden of proof as part of an HR internal investigation.

However, the employer may need to find substantiating evidence to prove the employee’s alleged misconduct in order to determine whether or not to take further action against the employee, including disciplinary action.

There are no rules governing the degree of proof that may be required to substantiate an allegation as part of an HR internal investigation. However, the employer should still identify sufficient evidence and witnesses to present to the court to prove the case against the subject employee, in case of any legal actions taken by the relevant persons as a consequence of the investigation.

There are no rules governing when an HR internal investigation may be ended; this may be subject to the facts of the specific investigation.

There are no rules governing the procedures that must be followed once the decision to end an HR internal investigation has been made.

There are no rules governing the form that the conclusion of an HR internal investigation must take. The standards of the conclusion may therefore be subject to the requirements of the individual company.

There are no rules governing the types of information that must be included in written reports prepared as part of an HR internal investigation. The information that is included in any such report may therefore be subject to the requirements of the individual company.

There are no requirements for any specific parties to receive information regarding the outcome of an HR internal investigation, nor are there any rules that give parties the right to request access to written reports prepared as part of an HR internal investigation. It may therefore be up to the individual company to decide whether it discloses any information regarding the outcome of an HR internal investigation, including any written reports.

There are no requirements for the conclusions of an HR internal investigation to be communicated to the authorities. In the absence of such requirement, it may not be necessary to provide such information to any authorities.

However, when an HR internal investigation results in a company finding that it and/or its employees have committed a specific offence under any relevant laws, whether or not the company has a duty to self-report or disclose any such offence may depend on the specific offence.

There are no requirements for the conclusions of an HR internal investigation to be communicated to other parties.

Appropriate disciplinary measures/actions shall be taken based on what is prescribed in the employer’s internal policies/regulations.

It is possible that the employer may take other measures following an HR internal investigation; such measures will depend on the findings or conclusions of the investigation. For example, the employer may provide training to the employees to prevent similar types of misconduct from occurring.

The employer may be able to collect the personal data of employees (or other third-party individuals) for the purposes of an HR internal investigation. The collection, use, disclosure and/or other processing of personal data will be subject to the requirements of the PDPA.

Please see 7.1 Collecting Personal Data.

Access to personal data will be subject to the requirements of the PDPA. More specifically, any party that wishes to access the personal data may require the consent of the data subject.

It is not common to use AI directly in conducting investigations. However, AI may still be used in assisting the investigator or legal counsel, such as analysing or summarising documents or transcribing the records of an interview.

If the use of AI involves the personal data of any individuals, the user will have to comply with the requirements of the PDPA as well.

There are no specific whistle-blowing protections.

The LPA specifically prohibits sexual abuse, sexual intimidation and sexual nuisance by employers, heads of department, supervisors and team leaders over their subordinates. However, there is no definition of what would be considered as sexual abuse, sexual intimidation or sexual nuisance under the LPA.

There has been no change to the legal framework in the past year.

There are no specific protections for allegations concerning other types of discrimination and/or harassment, including bullying and mobbing.

There has been no change to the legal framework in the past year.

There are no special procedures that the employer must follow if the allegations are also criminal in nature. In such case, the employer may need to review the specific offence to see if they are required to self-report or disclose the offence to any authorities. The employer may also need to consider the prescription period of the offence, as this may be relevant if the employer will take criminal action against the employees who have committed the offence.

There are no special procedures that the employer must follow in cases of multi-jurisdictional HR internal investigations from a Thai law perspective. However, the employer may need to consider the laws of the other jurisdictions that may be relevant to the investigation. This may include a need to be aware of the different laws related to the protection of privileged information or the transfer of data between countries that may apply in each jurisdiction.

Generally, foreign nationals may assist with carrying out HR internal investigations in Thailand, although they may be subject to visa and work permit requirements.